Hi Jim, perhaps because he lives off of surplus-value? (don't you mean _some_ American Marxists?) or is it because populist rhetoric sometimes pays in politics?
Well, "some American Marxists" is better or more polite. I suppose I get a little frustrated at times in my reading of the literature since I think they can make incredibly powerful arguments just by looking at the facts, and why many of them engage in obscure theoretical ostentation is often difficult to know - I think it's better to develop theory more from the facts, otherwise it's difficult to understand what is really relevant. Populist rhetoric ? I started to get into that a little, talking about the absurdities of the US prison system, but basically I think it's better to keep rhetoric to the minimum. Nobody really likes it. But surely it is better to recycle stuff that consumers waste in their consumption than "recycle" prisoners who are human beings ? It's the most absurd bureaucracy there is - punishment by imprisonment is supposed to cause moral and behavioural reform, and if two-thirds of prisoners wind up back in jail then you're not even achieving the most basic aim of the exercise, you are reproducing the problem at taxpayers expense. You're just admitting that you cannot solve a social problem, and are just trying to limit it, but why cannot you solve it ? If it is an increasing problem, something must be done, surely. I can hardly think of a more hypocritical area in politics than the drugs issue - but it's a political minefield and few have the courage to tackle it. As regards populism, the Socialist Party here is often accused of that by less popular people. But in party politics, you cannot cover all issues at the same time, you concentrate on those themes that are important, and they should be popular. Question is whether you are honest about it, or if it is just an opportunist adaptation to existing consciousness. The basic problem of opportunism is that it confuses leadership and the led, a practice which over time makes political clarity impossible. In sectarian politics, ideas have an exaggerated importance. In opportunist politics, ideas are subservient to the practice of the movement and adapted to it. Leadership consists in surmounting these two problems so that an acceptable relationship exists between theory and practice. The scope of opportunism in the SP is limited by various checks and balances, and people look carefully at the function and purpose of propagating ideas. The SP has just kicked out their Turkish MP Ali Lazrak, the architect of the controversial ethnic integration policy, because he became arbitrary in his political activity and refused to hand over his parliamentary salary to the party coffers, in exchange for 2165 euro netto per month plus expenses (this norm exists since 1974). Party members can make as much money as they want, legally, but you are not allowed to make money out of a position of political responsibility for which you have been elected. This principle is an important antidote against corruption. It could occur in other ways as well, of course. Bourgeois politics is primarily about money, because it is all about regulating markets and facilitating capital accumulation. In socialist politics you also have to talk money, but the are many other concerns which have nothing to do with money, and money must not overrule real needs and interests people have which exist irrespective of the money. If necessary, those needs and interests must be asserted regardless of money. J.
